I did not notice this yesterday, so let me make good the omission now:
We have all got used to accepting the fate of the Tories because it is so apparent.
The Mail is obviously beginning to think that the Royals are going the same way. There is very good reason to agree with them for once. Not only are the Royals making themselves irrelevant because their absence is clearly harming no-one, however relevant that absence might be for the recovery of those directly involved, but no one believes a word they say anymore.
The demise of the monarchy because of its own irrelevance coupled with its own obvious lack of integrity, rather than because of a deliberate choice to end it, might be a matter to regret, but the fact is that it is now teetering on the brink of extinction like it never has before, 1649 (maybe) excepted, and even then I cannot be certain as a popular heir still existed at that time.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I am no royalist, quite the opposite in fact, but I find this to be very sad and disappointing. Why? Because I think that while society in this country and beyond is becoming ever more polarised and conflict-prone, what’s needed is a neutral party which can somehow meditate between the opposing sides, and help to bring them together with a shared vision of a future in which everyone can be a valuable contributor. And maybe, just maybe, the British royal family could have been that catalyst.
But sadly there’s been no sign from the royals themselves that they see that as a role for themselves. I discount the reports from “royal watchers” and others because they appear without exception to have their own agendas.
Mail Office: ………bring bring bring bring: journo picks up phone “hello?”
“This is tory central office – you know who I am……we are struggling a bit at the moment – do us a favour and do a spread on the Royals – a bit of diversion to take the pressure of & it would be good for your circulation figures”
Journo “I’ll see what I can do”.
Useful diversion. I don’t give a stuff about the royals, never have, never will. But they do have their uses don’t they?
On a related note – in days of yore when the King was sworn in in Spain he was forced to swear that he was no better than anybodyelse…………this was back in the 15th century. Perhaps its time for the UK to update itself to … Spain in say 1450.
A Royal crisis would help Sunak no end
Very good Mike, very good . I love the bit about the Spanish king.
You may well be right about this being a diversion. Or if course, it might just be the Heil’s nauseating sycophancy and hypocrisy on show as per.
Perhaps we need a constitutional commission (and not one that takes years ) to produce modernised constitution. The existing one, partly legislation, partly convention (often relying on ‘good chaps’ ) and partly making it up as we go, is clearly not satisfactory.
OTOH the American constitution is an example of an outdated arrangement in which change is almost impossible. A quarter of the states can block it and that can be less than 20% of the population. Small rural states vote conservative and they fear a loss of power.
A new UK constitution should define the role of the Head of State. That person could be an hereditary monarch; appointed by the Senate or elected on the excellent Irish model.
The power of Parliament is the -in theory-absolute power of the Crown in Parliament. Time for a re-definition.
To take senior public office, an oath is required. At the moment it is to the Sovereign. I looked at the Australian situation. Armed services still swear allegiance to the Sovereign but new citizens use this one
From this time forward, [under God,] People can choose to invoke God.
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
This might be a starting point for us.
I think we are going to need that commission very soon.
Well, there’s this:
https://constitution-unit.com/2024/02/21/the-uk-governance-project-proposals-for-reform/
Not a constitutional commission, but has recently published an interesting report on reforming parliament and parliamentary procedure
Well, there’s this:
https://constitution-unit.com/2024/02/21/the-uk-governance-project-proposals-for-reform/
Not a constitutional commission, but has recently published an interesting report on reforming parliament and parliamentary procedure
(my ipad says I’ve posted this already. must have been on another of your blogs.
Would this be a constitutional commission that acknowledges the UK is made up of four nations? In Scotland the people are sovereign not the monarch. This, along with other fundamental and legal differences, is often ignored.
It would have to be or it would be meaningless
“ The power of Parliament is the -in theory-absolute power of the Crown in Parliament. Time for a re-definition.”
I d like to point out the position of Scots in this unequal United Kingdom. Scotland has a historic constitution which was protected in the Treaty of Union in 1707 but which has been relentlessly ignored by Westminster using the English absolute parliamentary power and the unequal powers afforded by the distribution of population.
Far from being a “Union of Equals” envisaged in the Treaty, and which the UK Government keep insisting we have, it is grossly unfair and permits Westminster to treat Scotland as their Colony and plunder Scots resources.
You’re right Robert: the Treaties of Union 1707 have been more honoured in the breach than in the observance and that is bound to continue until Scotland secedes from them. The fundamental problem lies in the irreconcilable difference in the definition of ‘Sovereignty’ in the two nations. Prior to the 1707 Union Scotland had codified its people as being sovereign, whereas England defined its Parliament as being sovereign. What is not clear to me is whether England ever codified it in written law as Scotland had done. However that scarcely matters: ever since 1707 the numerical supremacy of English MPs has ensured that laws passed by Westminster largely reflect England’s views and choices.
The UK FPTP electoral system and the dominance in Westminster of the Tory and Labour Party machines have also contributed to this bias, while the Devolution Settlement has ensured that all critical components of the Scottish economy are controlled by the UK Government in Westminster. So, the only possibility of the Scottish people ever freely exercising their sovereign rights to the benefit of Scotland lies in secession from the Treaties of Union. With every year more and more of our assets are being acquired by outside interests, so time is of the essence.
You might have missed this too https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/transfer-council-assets-middlesbrough-development-28816244
Disturbing and significant.
Agreed
It is both of those things.
October election then so they can get a few more done.
Well, this is where the under-investment (and the lies that support it) in the public realm will take us everywhere in the UK.
Into the the hands of the rich and unaccountable on the basis that ‘nothing can be done’.
It’s already started.
People used to call those warning about freeports and charter cities conspiracy nuts. Not so nutty now.
I agree
Doctoring the photographs really showed up the tensions and divisions in the family. Also, the right-wing are not keen on Charles from his past support for the green and climate agaenda and the searching letters he used to send to Tory ministers..The racism shown to Megan has also been a major negative factor.
There have been so many ridiculous crises in the monarchy since time immemorial that I just assume it will stagger on – there have been plenty of unpopular monarchs in previous eras. It may end up like Denmark or other cut down monarchies.
Constitutional reform is so urgent – the most important of which may be :
1 PR
2 ban on private money buying political parties and individual politicians
3 getting rid of the Lords and patronage
4 mandating elections every 4/5 years and not at the PM’s choosing
5 Media not controlled by billioniares etc
6 Stripping the monarchy of its residual powers
7 Some kind of democratic principles/rules – and maybe funding for political parties?
Andrew, all these points and many more are addressed in my forthcoming book “Reinventing Democracy: Improving British political governance.” As for the monarchy, the first step is to remove the Privy Council and House of Lords, replacing the poliotical governance functions of both by an elected People’s Council. Whether the monarchy then withers or otherwise fades away is immaterial: the deep problem is absolute power, entrenched via these autocratic and irrelevant bodies.
I share a sense of hope (?) but not much.
It is extreme wealth and the self interest of hangers-on that holds creaking institutions like the monarchy together. We Brits are past masters at this.
Not that I ever take much notice of the spiel of the Daily Heil, but thanks for bringing this to our attention Richard.
All I can say in response to Richard Kay (whoever the hell he is) is “oh good”. Not before time. Maybe now the UK can grow up?
I’m all for a constitutional republic if it gets rid of the idiots destroying this country by believing the government is operating on a maxed out credit card!
Democracy stands little chance of ever having an evidence based raison d’etre whilst its exact opposite, our inheritance based Monarchy ( costing £350 million in public funds ), remains in place to verify and underpin the obscene inequality of our present day super rich billionaires who are our modern day “ruling class” and keep alive our old top crust aristocracy of dukes, earls, barons, lords etc and their lord-lieutenants etc. If you’re looking for some of the worst global corruption no need to even leave these shores !
It does look like the monarchy is on its last legs. However it has to be said that historically the majority of states have been monarchies and that monarchies have been very good at adapting to changing circumstances. I don’t know much about the British monarchy, in fact I have just realised I know more monarchies in the Warring States period in China, but the following thought might be worth considering: According to Prof. Yuhua Wang the best predictor of a weak or incompetent monarch’s survival is the existence of a competent successor, where competent has to be taken in the sense of competent in the eyes of those with power who benefit from the institution.
This is a standard Daily Mail ploy. A threat masquerading as high-minded sympathetic concern.
What’s behind this one?
Have they got wind that Charlie is contemplating a speech offering support for constitutional reform or climate change protestors?
Or is it simpler than that and he is just refusing to give Paul Dacre some bauble or sinecure.
I know the Royals are going through a bit of a rocky patch at the moment but I genuinely can’t see the establishment interests in this country allowing them to fail.
The personnel might change but the institution will continue.
Just by chance this turned up yesterday in the blogsite Munguin’s New Republic:
https://youtu.be/qElmEr8RrLg
It was clearly filmed a couple of years ago as the scandal of appropriating the homes and property of Duchy of Lancaster residents who die intestate gets no mention, although it was widely covered in some MSM outlets.